Feminism, it’s not about equality.

A response to this article http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/women-of-influence/94016874/women-of-influence-feminism-has-been-around-for-over-150-years-and-its-still-needed that I’m sure wont be published in Stuff.co.nzStory Here
I recently read an opinion by Anna Guenther concerning the future of feminism. She started her opinion off with a tale of some casual sexism, but don’t worry it was sexism against men so that’s okay in feminist world.

She had been asked to speak about the future of feminism and had to decline as she admitted she wasn’t a feminist, however her boyfriend was and was happy to speak. The organiser unsurprisingly said no Anna reported.

Was the speech organiser sexist as she didn’t want a feminist speaker purely based on the sex of the speaker? Either way Anna’s acceptance that he wouldn’t be allowed because of his sex, the unsurprising part was casual everyday sexism. But it’s the kind of sexism that feminist endorse, even revel in.

Anna goes on to say women are dying because of our gender. It’s hard to argue that because it’s true, however it’s only half a story. Men are dying because of our gender too, and in far greater numbers. Yet few feminists care about male suicide rates (80% male), work deaths (95% male), police, firefighters, soldiers, (almost 100% male) and poor health (average life expectancy 10% less than women with worse results for Maori or Pacific Islanders), homelessness, (almost entirely a male problem).

Many men feel as if no one actually cares about these deaths. It’s news, then it’s not. Men who were just trying to feed and house their families work these jobs that keep our country alive but their deaths are unimportant to us really. We will have another Pike River, as we had a Strongman Mine disaster before it.

As Camille Pagila and old school or second wave feminist puts it, “men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.”

Ask any adult male and he’s likely to have a list of friends, not acquaintances, he’s lost to suicide. However in this very paper I’ve seen articles about suicide with pictures of women or teenage girls, not the men and boys who are actually dying at a rate of 4 to 1. Again casual sexism.

Anna then discusses domestic violence. The publicly endorse narrative concerning this subject could be summarised thus; men are bad women are victims. Again this is a case of half a story because women do suffer domestic violence but men suffer domestic violence too. If fact studies, such as the Dunedin study, show that men suffer as much from the same quantity of domestic violence as women do, but men have no refuge centres to take our children to when we leave and abusive woman.

These studies are rejected by feminists because they wish to control the narrative around domestic abuse. Indeed just uplifting our own children could be quite problematic and result in issues around custody later or criminal charges.

There are some helplines available, for whatever good that would do but even in this token effort to help male victims the casual sexism persists. Many men have wrung these helplines for help to be told the helpline was for men who abuse women and the operator didn’t believe men could be victims. It is hard to believe that a 90kg man can live in fear of a 60kg woman but many do.

Advise heard from most men who have been the victims of a violent woman is never phone the police. Institutional sexism has conditioned them to believe the men bad, woman victim narrative. The few who did often found their claims either outright rejected or turned around to make them the aggressor.

I know in my own personal circumstance, where i suffered from a violent and unbalanced girlfriends abuse, phoning police was never going to solve the issue. As for talking to friends or family, the same reasons that silence female victims kept my mouth shut. We heard all about the under reporting of domestic violence by women but feminists stop short of applying this basic logic to men, indeed it’s not in their interests to do so.

In terms of education Women are now 64% of graduates, meaning men are only 36% of graduates. Casual sexism again, we lead with a positive about women that hides a negative about men. We see this reversed often as well in statements like one in four homeless are women seen recently on social media. A strange way of saying 75% of homeless are men.

No one sees this as a problem, indeed its celebrated. Were the sexes reversed in this equation there would be calls of inquiries and government intervention, but here, silence. If fact on the whole boys are failing at education fullstop, but again this hasn’t raised the hackles of any feminists.

Women are moving into positions of power and leadership, yes it’s slow but why should capable men give up their jobs they worked hard for. If women are as or more capable they will be hired, it is that simple. Business looks out for itself and the bottom line. If Jane can earn us more profit than Bob, we hire Jane.

Finally I believe that feminism has no interest in equality.

Where are the feminists pushing for law changes in areas such as rape,the laws pertaining to rape (only men can be charged), shared parenting, (currently the family court seems incredibly biased), sentencing for crimes, ( women receive 60% of a mans sentence and it seems being a mother is a factor taken into account but being a father isnt).

Overseas and here too i expect, we see situations such as two drunk people having sex, yet only the woman can claim it was rape because she wasn’t able to give consent in that state. Regardless of the state of the male, his consent is not needed.

According to the FBI, 1 in 8 rape complaints are false, yet feminists refuse to deal with this fact. Instead blaming a court system for not convicting everyman accused based on a listen and believe system of justice last seen in places like Salem.

Women who do make false complaints are not called out by feminists for putting other women in danger of not being believed. Indeed they are often given support and even treated like well something must of happened. No thought to the man who has had his life turned inside out, in fact Mary Koss, a prominent feminist lecturer who worked with law enforcement in the USA, stated that she believed men could be improved by a false allegation and that is was impossible for a woman to rape a man. Both these ideas have had far reaching consequences.

In many ways feminism has turned into a she woman man hating club with prominent feminists making statements such as. “I feel that man hating is an honourable and viable political act.” Robin Morgan “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at 10% of the population” Sally Gearhart “All men are rapist.” Marilyn French “We need to put all men in camps and women can take them out like library books.” Julie Bindel “Maleness is a disease” Valerie Solanas Clementine Ford a “journalist” for an Australian feminist leaning magazine and famous mostly for blocking anyone who doesn’t think she the greatest thing since sliced bread on twitter, even jokes about killing men online. Casual sexism, imagine a male reporter joking about killing women. Melanie Griffin, didn’t seem to understand why a depiction of her holding the severed head of Donald Trump would cause such an outroar, yet would some other B grade comedian posted the same picture with Hillary’s head without expecting drama? No of course not. Casual sexism.

If you disagree with any feminist ideas be prepared to be labelled a misogynist. It’s the go to default argument that means we can ignore you because we decided you hate women. There are others, you could be mansplaining, a sexist term used to silence male opinion and shame them into being quite.

Feminism is run more in line with a religion than a living breathing theory that adapts to the real world. It’s central tenet is that women are oppressed and men are oppressing them through some mythical, can see it, can’t prove it’s there god called patriarchy. In patriarchy all men benefit, even those coal miners and suicide victims and homeless at the expense of women.

In my opinion Feminism needs to die and be replaced with egalitarianism, which seeks equality for everyone, regardless of sex, race, sexual preference or any other factor.

“I’m a feminist for Sophie.”
Wow.
She supports females who use sex to control and manipulate men.
Wow she supports the medical profession that has all to often failed men asking for help.
Drugging them in error making them far worse than they started.
Then going oops it’s not our fault.
It’s him, he’s just a bad man.

Sophie is like a feminist call girl.
She will be present at all there parties for decades.

“Second, women are graduating in higher numbers than ever before. Sixty-four percent of university graduates are women. But we’re still not going up “the ladder” at the same rate as men. Nowhere near. Because the work we do isn’t valued the same as men, both in the office and in the home.”
So how have women gained the majority in the Supreme Court?
As for at home I can say as a stay at home dad I am not valued at all. I get some funny looks when I inform kindergarten teachers etc.

“The pay gap didn’t relate to their starting offer but their willingness to negotiate, even though, negotiation was a topic they studied. Over a lifetime this aggregated to $1 million in lost earnings.”
I’ve gone over this somewhere else.
It’s irrational to be $1 million.
Males would need to earn $10 million in a lifetime with females earning 10% less.
Or the average males needs to earn $250,000 a year.

The girls’ cardboard box is 14% further up the middle of the road than the boys’, but we’re still more than 28% behind.

Tertiary Institutions introduce a new range of core subjects to suit ‘the voices of women’ … a very small minority of males take these subjects … so we see a not surprising increase in the percentage of female graduates which is not relative to historical percentages of graduates.

When you talk to these 64% promotional icons it’s hard to fathom whether it’s a genuine belief or a robotic malfunction. This is the leadership quality that the face of Feminism presents, and this is what many young minds aspire too.

64% may in fact be the absolute height of bullshit – is it possible to reach 100% bullshit? The other 36% may be a vacuum in which young women fall from high places trying to get a head start on climbing up the moonbeam.

Feminists hold a different view of equality, that is seldom understood by men, or related to, because it is so vastly different.

Their primary requirement of true equality starts with the concept that all women must first be equal.

Men being equal to that is not their responsibility, but that of the male.

Put another way, men cannot be equal with women, if they do not accept our concept of equality.

Along with this there is the aesthetics of equality. Much like a statue representing achieved success, the statue of equality is visually represented by equal numbers of male and female.

I refer to this in terms of gender, men being inherently men will naturally not abide by this foreign environment, and we see areas were women are visually represented by the majority.

This is in their mind system a failure of men.

The idea that women will never be equal with men because they cannot achieve at the same level, has been circumvented by a new definition of equality, and a process of equality.

This is often responded to in the manner of, just give them what want and they will shut up.

In failing to understand the fallacies of Feminism we do not accurately predict the consequences, more that we continually review the failure, which is inherently male, but the real frustration is having to walk backwards while we do it.

An endless battle ensues: men saying the mess is your fault you cut us from the social picture. Feminists saying if you had understood and participated in equality we wouldn’t have a problem.

Many women can’t explain this to themselves, let alone to a man, because their participation is learned robotic behavior.

Hugin – A very well written article. Describes the current situation, how we got there and points out the hypocrisy when matched against genuine statistics.

In the news story there was firm assessment that woman still need assistance to help achieve better results. So I wonder at what point would feminists believe equality would be achieved?

Would it be when men only account for 10% of graduates?

Perhaps it would be considers better to have a further rise in male suicide to say 95% of victims instead of the current 80%?

Difficult to see how feminists could arrange things better so that more that 100% work place deaths of firefights, police and soldiers.

Maybe there is an expectation of absolutely baring any evidence that could assist a man being found not guilty of rape? Or maybe still no trial at all. I know they are working on this idea now.

And how about Robin Morgans requirement that the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at 10% of the population. Maybe she could arrange things where 90% of newborn boys were terminated at birth or in the womb.

At what point would feminist think their their lives would be better off?

The 1980s Feminists held the belief (and I have no idea of the scientific validity):that the female child could be obtained by conception at a specific time in the period when there was a designated temperature fluctuation.

I kid you not, that these woman had their male in tow, where ever they were at that particular time, and would make half hourly trips to the toilet to check the thermometer, so the designated time to mate wasn’t missed.

30 years later I’m not seeing a blip in the sexual character of the population, so I guess that might have been a new wives tale, rather than an old one.

Just one point of correction: Studies such as the Dunedin study didn’t quite find that men suffer as much from the same quantity of domestic violence as women do. With respect to intimate partner violence, they found that male and female partners commit violence towards each other at similar frequency but that males commit more of the most serious violence. For example, 80% of intimate partner homicides are committed by male against female partners. So, in fact, men suffer as often but not as much on average from intimate partner violence. For family violence other than intimate partner violence, men both suffer and commit around 80% of the most serious violence including homicide. However, the numbers involved are about half that for intimate partner violence, so it still remains inaccurate to say that men suffer as much from domestic violence.

The main point you were making is valid, that domestic violence suffered by men is much more comparable to that for women than the feminists acknowledge, and male refuges are almost nonexistent and none are supported financially by government.

Feminism is not about equality, nor is politics – so is there any party which will acknowledge males equally with females? Well by my attendance at Winston Peter’s campaign launch and also my attendance at Gareth Morgan’s TOP party function tonight – neither party acknowledge males equally. and I think we know the others all too well also.
TOP party website under “Democracy” has a bit about “Constitution”. “Women’s Rights” is specifically mentioned – while “Men’s rights is absent”. I went early and asked them about this. A tall guy denied it, but I recommend you check their site for yourselves. I was then accused of “sexism” and physically guided to the door and instructed to leave. So there is the TOP party’s treatment of males and tortured dads in action. Do they treat abused women similarly – I really doubt it.
This is why I don’t vote- no party represents me. There is no party I can back in order to simply protest vote against the others.

Hi Jerry,
Firstly, good on you for going along and informing yourself about the position these party’s hold on issues of mens rights.

I have written to the leaders of both party’s asking what their stance will be and neither has replied. I was trying to avoid a repeat of three years ago, I didn’t vote at all.
Yesterday was three years to the day that David Cunliffe got up and made his planned “I’m sorry for being a man” speech that resulted in less than 10% of kiwi men voting red.

Isn’t it strange that not one party has realised anything from this?

Perhaps its thought that men vote in a gynocentric manor – perhaps they think men will only vote for the interests of their mothers, wives and daughters?

Perhaps they think that men are so taken in by the constant male put downs such as rape culture and the urgent issue of a pay gap that this year will be the year that illogical feminism will win over men’s votes.

Mabye we should do- as a record amount (10%) of the French did this year by enrolling and taking the time to queue at a polling booth but just leave the ballot paper blank.

Let me share a short story about a discussion I had in a dim-lit alleyway smoko room of a city bar a couple of months ago.

A young German couple who I got chatting with (actually I don’t know if they were in a relationship or just friends, my guess was the latter as he didn’t seen to have the familiar diminished quiet subservient demeanour that NZ men in relationships often exhibit)

They had both recently migrated to NZ and were full of positives about our country, its less crowded, natural environment and the work and adventure opportunities they found to be available.

They had both mentioned “equality” as one of the benefits of NZ life and when one of them mentioned the word a third time I decided to enquire about their reference to this wonderful aspect.
“Do you mean equality among race’s, demographics’ or sexes?” I asked.

The woman answered that we seemed to have racial equality but certainly we have sexual equality and mentioned equal rights as an example. The man nodded and said “there’s less male power and control over women”.- they were obviously- “””educated”””.

The man commented that this equality was also “Big” in their home country also now.

Normally Jerry, I like to leave visitors and newcomers with a take-home treasure box of positive feelings about NZ and play host describing further aspects they might enjoy etc.

Perhaps It was the quarter moon, but this night I decided to share my thoughts unequivocally and more ambiguously.

I said that I don’t believe we have equality in New Zealand.

“Do you think there’s still a long way to go” said the woman.

I shrugged and said “let me give an example”.

Directing my speech towards the man I said.-

“say you guys didn’t know each other and had just met here in this dark place an started chatting alone, but something in the way you approached her annoyed her or perhaps she misunderstood you or you just caught her in a bad mood without realising and she became upset and angry with you.”

“What if she left the room and said to the staff or perhaps a police-officer that you had touched her on her body inappropriately or that you had physically hurt her.”

Do you understand that just from her accusation you would be arrested?”

“Arrested-yes” said the German.

“Now Imagine that you’d just met here and started talking but you hadn’t realised straight away that she was so drunk and when she quickly got nasty and started swearing and pushing you, just to see what you could or would do about it, so then you’ve had enough start to walk away but she only got angrier that you ignored her and picked up this ashtray and threw it at you.”

“I’ve seen women like this” he said.

“Would you tell the police”?

“no”

“Why not”???

“They wouldn’t do anything”!

There was ‘crickets’ for a moment as his eyes searched the floor and I let the pause continue, but I wasn’t finished.

“Its NOT equality,” he said.

“What if you got married but your wife no longer liked you, in fact she wanted to harm you because somehow she wanted things to be different and she blamed you.
Do you think if she said to the police that you had just hurt her or that she’d seen you hurting the children what do you think would happen.”?

“Then I’d go to the courthouses, probably go to jail”

“Now what if your wife really was hurting you or hurting your children, what would you do?”

More crickets.

Him and I sat still…

I could tell he was taken and surprised by these questions. There was no need for me to go on after what happened next.

He turned to the woman sitting next to him who was fist pumping the sky, “YES, WE HAVE ALL THE POWER” she exhaulted.

The German’s face was like stone as he realised his real human rights and her reaction to them.

He could tell – she saw these issues like it was all a game of one against another for “power and control”.

Egalitarianism was not her objective, far from it..

Of course I couldn’t resist a final knife blow “So…. do you still feel equal?

Id said enough, I’d killed the light mood of the evening with conversation out of right-field.

I left them and returned to the bar and the music, Partly I felt like an asshole for bringing up issues like this, Perhaps they were on a first date? honeymoon?
I was a bit surprised when he made his was over to me shortly after and thanked me for talking with him and said he had realised.. this and that.

She even kissed me goodbye and with a smile said I hope we might see you at such and such that we had first spoken of.

But this wasn’t the reaction I usually get when I bring up men’s issues.

Generally people look at me like there is something wrong with me.

Almost all of the time people are so used to the blue pills, the red ones don’t have a taste they wish to acquire.

Voices @13; Yes you did well. By coincidence scooting down to the city very early yesterday morning, I encountered a male Argenyinian hitchiker. There was a guy with him. I acknowledged them as I passed. I stopped on my way home, and we had a chat. Looking back I think the other guy was a sleepless local P-user or something. Rather incoherent and was not at all a Hetch Hiker’s asset. I had a similar chat about equality, but I warned him to be careful around kiwi girls and relayed a few apropos horror stories to make the point. My intention was to cause him to keep his brain engaged around the girls.
But as for the TOP party. Its the first time I had been physically excorted from anywhere. I had done them the courtesy of arriving very early, thus not making any public scene. I simply pointed out that they enshrine the Rights of Women in their proposed national constitution, but nowhere give males equally enshrined rights. In my view they their denial either showed they were not familliar with their own published policies, or they were simply telling lies. Either way, thereis nothing to differentiate them from any other party, or any other party’s corrupt, dishonest devious insincerity.
I came home smarting at this, but could not reasonably figure out why. This surprised me. Yet I went thinking it likely TOP would be exactly the same political animals as are in the other Party zoos, so I had no right to be surprised. I went early to interrogate this single issue, so I could know if there was any merit in staying for the whole show – or else better to use my time on other activities. I made no public scene whatsoever.
Its one of those occasions where I really and dearly hope that my hunches were proven wrong. Unless I was proven wrong I could have no hope – and like you, I did not vote and have not voted for years now. As I see it, there is no party to vote for.
BUT I had to let MENZ know about this. Point out the TOP manifesto and its serious negligence and ignorance towards males while making specific support for females.
There is something dissatisfying and troubling about not having a viable alternative voting option. This does exclude us as if we do not exist – which of course is the policy reality too.
If there was a party which had only the policy of “One law for all” – my political pulse would restart. Equal-Rights would be inseperable from Equal-Responsibilities. Absolute equality, necessitating the abolition of all gender/sex based legislation and policies. Even in the absence of any other policy, I could vote again – I would vote for that. If nothing else, it would be countered as a “protest-vote”; but a protest which would be specific about the base issue.
As for leaving voting forms blank -??? Isn’t that a bit vague? Nothing would identify the reason for your protest. If anything were done along those lines, would it not be better to despoil the paper with a statement like “Equal rights, responsibilities, laws and policies for all” ?

@13 Hague cases that came our way were predominantly related to Germany. I would say something similar to a young Kiwi bloke: if Kiwi woman scare you, don’t fool yourself and bring home a German girl.

Last time I was in Germany, about 2004, Munich still looked like 1970s Chch, probably still does. I too bumped into a young German couple the other day – couldn’t tell me how much they loved the country, and were going home to save up for their next trip.

While Political parties puff on about EQUALITY and then quietly reveal that some demographics are more equal than others – there are other concerning issues by my reading of their online manifesto. I’m over 65, have a gold card. I need it because my Family court troubles left me broke, unemployed and without retirement or any investments. Also no home or other assets. Using other folks cast offs, shopping at Good-will, and fixing rubbish to do what I need. Being court ordered to not work, and have no under thte table side-line – while trying to raise two kids is really difficult. This must be very common among fathers on this site. So take a look at what they propose for NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION. $200/w [presumably GROSS] and topped up by means-test to current minimum Super levels. Many older folks currently get disability allowances and accomodation supplements – but no comment about those additional assistances being kept.
I believe this situation would have many other impacts upon asset stripped fathers and the elderly. Some of those impacts would be mental health/suicide related.
It is quite possible by their manifesto that the broken dads whether on benefit or Super could easily become more destitute than they already are.

I took a very ill friend to the doctor’s surgery yesterday. While waiting, I observed an “anti-smoking” poster. However, this one was as much or more about anti-male portrayals and blaming men. This poster features a human sized cigarette with a mans face framed visible through a hole. Beside the cigarette a young lady was standing. The caption “He gave me cancer”. So the way I see it, nasty illnesses which are a consequence of women’s fully informed stupidity is now assigned a male-persona – I guess because male=bad offender & female equals right and victim. What do you guys think? I’m told this is on TV, but I do not watch TV.

DJ Ward @20; I doubt the boys avoiding the girls at that age isn’t just normal. Now if it was teenage boys avoiding girls, thats another story. But to my experience, it was generally “sissy” to mix with girls when I was young, and I really don’t recall any coming to my daughters parties either

DJ Ward @21: Yes, I noticed that article. My thought was that it’s typical of the NZ Herald and other news media to publish a story complaining about some trivial gender-based exclusion of a girl but have never raised any questions about the numerous female-only groups and services that have proliferated in recent years (or that continue from the past) contrary to feminism’s claimed wish to overcome gender discrimination.

The same gender discrimination is evident in the Herald’s current campaign regarding youth suicide. Almost all the photos and most of the stories are about girls. Although the gender difference in suicide is lower for youth than for older groups, boys still commit suicide at around twice the rate that girls do. That has not even been mentioned in the Herald’s articles, much less reflected in their focus.

Cruising YouTube today I found this item. Yeah, okay its FOX news, but there seems a feminist enough hypocrit behind the item. In the aftermath of the Manchester bombing, this woman “calls-out” the UK men to defend their women and children against that terrorism. I think its time the feminists, who say they are “equal” and “need men like a fish needs a bicycle”, that feminsts went out and proved they don’t need men to be “cannon fodder on their account any more.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euc8vwVHJnI

I was thinking, oh no we are all going to be labeled and denigrated due probably one silly individuals statement.
But no it’s a different form of propaganda.
Clearly the headline is aimed at us.
If you just saw the headlines you may go.
There goes those crazy MRAs again.
It’s not the case however.

“Because I get a lot of crap for having done nudes scenes and sex scenes. That, in itself, is so anti-feminist. Women hating on other women is just the problem. That’s upsetting.”

I thought it was called the sistership but then I realised that’s just the Labour Party and not the whole government. I have said the Human Rights Commision were in charge of HMNZS Misandry. Probably rowed using male servants funded by child support penalty kickbacks.

There is another part of government that we have all said was being biased in the name of feminism. The education system and its performance in educating boys.

So here we have large numbers of boys that don’t have a father, or even father figure, probably never had a male teacher prior to secondary school with the system that measures performance specifically designed around female traits. They are continually bombarded with feminist propaganda that labels then as violent monsters that cant be trusted around children and were raised in a rape culture that ensures that no female is safe around them. Then they are told they are priveldged and won’t actually need to try in school because despite females getting most of the degrees they will be paid 12% more anyway.

Who said the female or male teachers don’t mark female internal assesments more kindly. Has this been examined to see if teachers have an obnoxious bias.

Don’t worry the female principle thinks it’s fantastic.
This may be a statistical possibility to occur but IQ distribution should actually result in the high performers being mostly male, but female just outperforming males on average.

And the Ministry of Education is trying to fix this?
I’m with #28 it’s a Dickhatership.

The principles, one of which is egalitarianism for ‘the female species’ as Mr Caton so eloquently put it, in a recent comment.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.